You people who watch "Game of Thrones", how do you do it? o.O
Husband bought the series and I've been trying to watch with him. Two episodes in and it's like ALL THE NICE THINGS have been taken away forever from me. It's not grim or dark or gritty so far, it's just been really awful people doing really awful things, and so far only to women, children, and a single highly traumatized man.
Is there a coping mechanism to get through this that I don't know about?
It's not grim or dark or gritty so far, it's just been really awful people doing really awful things...
ReplyDeleteOh, well, then...
I am completely the wrong person to answer your question. People keep waving the books at me, and I keep politely declining. I can't imagine the show is any less do not want.
Well as I like it and want it to continue, I'm glad that the committees of the Hugo Awards, Locus Awards, Television Critics Association Awards, Screen Actors Guild Awards, Satellite Awards, Peabody Awards, Golden Globes Awards, Scream Awards and Emmy Awards disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteThey disagree with me about my personal opinion of the first two episodes? Interesting, I would have thought those prestigious awards committees would recognize that not everything is for everyone and would additionally have recognized that my question wasn't meant as some kind of attack on the show or the people who watch it, seeing as my own husband is a fan.
ReplyDeleteThe quality of the work in the eyes of critics is an entity divorced from how an individual actually goes about enjoying or receiving the work.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's a question of taste? Perhaps it's something like "if this show is so well-regarded, why am I finding it so hard to enjoy?".
In my experience, Ana, the simple response is that there pretty much is no coping mechanism. If anything you can probably count what you've seen as an appetizer for yet future awful things and awful people- it's really not going to get easier.
And that's perfectly okay.
It is, of course, reasons why some people would enjoy the work. That, too, is perfectly okay.
Just don't find yourself watching a show even though you don't want to because it "Has to be good, right?".
While I would never dream of watching the show, I don't think "coping mechanism"--let me rephrase.
ReplyDeleteI think if you find yourself consuming any manner of media and you find yourself wondering, "Is there a coping mechanism to get through this?" the answer will pretty much always be, "No, you shouldn't be consuming it."
Out of curiosity... WHICH highly traumatized man? I'm honestly not sure which one you mean (I guess because I don't know if you mean the first two episodes of the first or second season)....
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, that response is a pretty good indication that it only gets worse from here. It really is that awful, and there really is no coping mechanism, and I say that as a fan. I definitely wouldn't be a fan, though, if I hadn't read the books- I'm not sure how the show is even vaguely comprehensible if you haven't. So I'm watching because it's a fabulously high-production-value show about books I really really liked with a few actors I like and I want to see what they do with it. And I'm fans of the books for character/plot/worldbuilding reasons.
But it's truly awful and there is no coping mechanism and it's really not anything I'd recommend to people unless I was sure of their tastes.
Lurker here to say, I think in some cases it's to do with the fact that a lot of people have read the books already and therefore know what to expect--it lessens the blow if you're not surprised by it. And though I've only seen the first handful of episodes, I don't recall any extra awfulness that wasn't already in the books.
ReplyDeleteThis of course leads directly to "but how did you cope with the books?????" To which I say, I have a general hypothesis for the fanbase (which anyone's welcome to correct me on) and my own personal experience.
General statement: it's easier to consume such things in a non-visual medium. TV directs your gaze, and dictates the severity of the events much more than most novels do. And a lot of novels start from low points with the intention of bringing the characters up out of it, so you can get some mileage out of assuming "it'll get better eventually." That said...
Personal experience: the books are more sympathetic to the characters being wronged, at least the first book, and at least in Dany's case. Martin writes restricted third person, and all of Dany's chapters are her POV, whereas the TV show does a far worse job of showing what's going on inside her head or the fact that her narrative arc is (spoilers?) one of triumph.
But you didn't mention her specifically, so re: a lot of the other characters, I think there's some shock value involved? Idk. I think part of my reason for liking it was that so much fantasy is sugar and rainbows and power of love, and I liked seeing an author actually play out the consequences of the situation and setting he constructed.
I never read beyond the first book, though, so...possibly I am not the best person to be responding to this.
I'll agree with previous posters that if you feel like you need a coping mechanism, watch something else; it isn't worth distressing yourself over. Although I would be really damn interested to read a deconstruction. Would viewing it from a decon perspective help? (If not, also fine.)
And while I'm posting let me just say, I do not have the words to express how much I love your blog, both the contents of your posts and the safe space you strive to create and protect. You (and your fellow Ramblites) are really awesome people. Thank you.
You didn't know? Whenever an award is given out it means one thing and one thing only: "Ana Mardoll is TOTALLY WRONG if she thinks this might not be her thing." That's what awards are for.
ReplyDeleteSheesh.
" It's not grim or dark or gritty so far, it's just been really awful people doing really awful things, and so far only to women, children, and a single highly traumatized man."
ReplyDeleteThey disagree that you need a coping mechanism to deal with this. And to avoid pretentious sarcasm (which is unfortunately common with people who think that they're smarter than they are), the word 'you' in the previous sentence doesn't refer to refer to you Ana Mardoll personally.
Errr...Ana?
ReplyDeleteMy best friend, after several months, had finally coerced me into buying the first book.
I'm barely on...what you would call the third or fourth chapter (the chapter titles are merely the titles of the characters, so it’s a point of view book). And that's not because it's a long book; it’s because I have to work to like it. This is not a very coherent, mini-deconstruction as I don’t even feel like bringing the book out to recall what bothers me about it:
1.) There are a *lot* of characters to keep up with…and so far, a lot of them have stories That I’ve Heard Before
2.) There are a *lot* of places to keep up with; a lot of them are mentioned in brief, speedy passing and therefore I just feel like I got another Information Overload (even with a map at the beginning of the book)
3.) I think there are characters of color…but they are only portrayed as ‘exotic’ and they largely fill the role of bodyguards (*cue Epic Fail music*)
…Actually, you know what? Never mind. I got my book out and I’m on the chapter of, err…Daenerys, or “Dany”, as she’s called. So, to continue my snark fest:
4.) Everything operates in a world of Patriarchy…and, frankly, I don’t feel that the author sees that as a problem and therefore, an interesting plot point for his characters
5.) Random: Who the hell names their sword ‘Ice’?
6.) There are just *way* too many symbolisms, omens, etc. to take in; often, I would have to put the book down and just *think* about what I read for a long, long time if it was going to make any sense
And, well…I guess it’s not so much that I *dislike* Game of Thrones so much as it’s just that I’m not interested in the hype. I haven’t picked it up for two weeks now. Except, of course, to answer your question.
I apologize if that’s not very helpful. I suspect that if I *do* get through the book(s), it’ll only be because I don’t want to disappoint my best friend. : /
Not to comment one way or another, but this debate reminds me of the controversy touched off by the Anne Bishop Black Jewels books a few years back. (Which was not acrimonious or public or anything like that.) A substantial portion of the readership targeted for such works was turned off by the Black Jewels books b/c they contained passages which were, shall we say, unfilmable. "How can you even stand to read this stuff," is what they asked the Black Jewels fans, who replied, "Over and over and over again; how can you not be fascinated?" Eventually everybody agreed to disagree and the fuss, such as it was, died down.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that the point at issue was one of taste and that that's the reason the question couldn't be settled. De gustibus non est disputandum...
I knew the Newbury people were doing it on purpose, but not it's ALL the awards committees? Dammit! LOL.
ReplyDeleteModerator Notice
ReplyDeleteTrigger Warning: Rape
They disagree that you need a coping mechanism to deal with this.
Hi, Stella. I gather from your Disqus profile that you're new around here. Please familiarize yourself with the comment policy before commenting again, as you are dangerously close to arguing that individuals shouldn't have their own personal triggers.
http://www.anamardoll.com/p/comment-policy.html
Please also familiarize yourself with the fact that this is a safe space hosted by a blogmistress who is a rape survivor, which is the sort of thing you might want to know before you write a post which seems to tell her that she shouldn't need coping mechanisms to deal with a show that has a 2 for 2 rape-to-episode quotient so far.
Amarie,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with most of your criticisms, though for me most of them aren't criticisms- I LIKE the "too many people, too many places, too many significant elements." It doesn't feel like information overload and I end up ripping through the books really quickly because that feeling of so much going on, so many threads I want to get back to, makes it really a page turner for me.
Plus, yeah, it's racist as fuck. No question. If anything the book is worse than the show on this front, just because the tight POV and the fact that we're only in the heads of certain types of characters (all white and bound by common culture and racist themselves) makes the view of the characters of color even more othering.
However, I really disagree with "Everything operates in a world of Patriarchy…and, frankly, I don’t feel that the author sees that as a problem and therefore, an interesting plot point for his characters."
The books are dramatically about power and systems of power- who has it and from what sources and how they gain it and what they choose to do with it. Power based on physical attributes, skills, wits, but above all, on wealth/nobility and gender. I think the way that Martin has written women in those systems may be the best part of the books. Catelyn and Cersei are both keenly aware of the patriarchal system they live in and the fact that their lives have been entirely shaped for the benefit of the men in their families, that their nominal power comes only from their relationships with men. Catelyn's life has been completely defined by conflicting obligations to father/brother/husband/sons/daughters, and she is aware of it, and bitter about it, and determined to make the choices SHE wants to make between those different interests rather than the ones she is ordered to.
And the two Stark girls- Arya who tries to reject the gendered system completely and Sansa who is utterly fooled by the stories told little girls to keep them complacent and blind to the patriarchy, and who completely crumbles when she realizes that power is the key and she has none. And Dany, who leaves a culture where she has no power and is abused by her brother for one where she can be a queen- not because the second culture is less patriarchal but because she has a relationship with a powerful man there and is able to leverage that, plus her personal leadership qualities (and those three other things...), into power in her own right. And you haven't even met Brienne yet!
And it's pretty good on "the kyriarchy hurts men too" - see Tyrion, John, Sandor Clegane, Samwell Tarly, etc. I'd say Tyrion is a fan favorite at least in part because, despite being keenly aware (and bitter about) the disadvantages his dwarfism brings him, he's the only character in the whole series who is also keenly aware of his privilege.
Er, sorry, I got massively rambly there. I just feel like you confused "the book is about a patriarchal culture" with "the book is patriarchal."
Er, sorry, I got massively rambly there. I just feel like you confused "the book is about a patriarchal culture" with "the book is patriarchal."
ReplyDeleteShe wouldn't be the first woman to do so.
Keep in mind that "the book is patriarchal" is a matter of opinion, as with all book analysis. So she may be confused about authorial intent (which we can never truly know), but she cannot be confused about her impression of the book. She can simply disagree with you.
Let's keep that in mind for GRRM as much as we have for Twilight, Disney, Narnia, etc. Please.
Or to put it a little more clear-cut for the rest of the thread:
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between "Huh, I feel differently than you" and "You are wrong about your own opinion."
I get that you really really like the show and think it's deserving of awards. That's cool. People like different things. And award winning things can still be not everyone's thing. But I really don't understand why you're defending it against someone saying "Woah, I don't know if this is my thing, it's really upsetting me." That seems a bit... out of line.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that "the book is patriarchal" is a matter of opinion, as with all book analysis.
ReplyDeleteEhhhh...
Um, Ana? Is "being a strict relativist" a requirement to comment here? 'Cause I don't believe all book analysis is matters of opinion. And while "Book X is patriarchal" takes more words and more effort to argue than, say, "Rue in the Hunger Games was always dark-skinned," I'm a long way from agreeing that it a priori cannot be argued--as a matter of fact, not of opinion.
TW: Rape, Mental Illness
ReplyDeleteAnd while I'm posting let me just say, I do not have the words to express how much I love your blog, both the contents of your posts and the safe space you strive to create and protect. You (and your fellow Ramblites) are really awesome people. Thank you.
Thank YOU. :)
Since you asked so nicely, I've been having a really hard time with Daenerys (since I mentioned that there has been one rape per episode). Rape I can handle, even in a visual medium, or I wouldn't like "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" like I do, but it's still pretty tough for me to watch, and it's all in how it's handled in the narrative, as to whether or not I'll like the result.
To have a rape victim seduce her rapist and have that be less of a survival tactic but more of a totally-getting-into-it-oh-me-oh-my scene hit me all kinds of hard because, um, that has not been my experience with rape. I mean, I'd really been following the whole thing up to that point. He's dangerous and scary! She's learning to seduce him as a survival tactic! The... actress is really acting... er... into it, and it seems like she's acting that way for realsy and not just to try to trick him. That's... um... yeah. I'ma go take some really calming breaths.
Rape narratives are not necessarily bad, but they do have to be used to show that Rape Is Bad in a sensitive and thoughtful manner in order for me to like them. When a rape victim seems to be falling into sexy-times-love with her rapist, and there's absolutely nothing hanging over the scene going This Is Wrong And Horrible And Awful, then it just comes off as terribly problematic to me. Here's hoping it's handled in a later episode and that I was wrong about Daenerys and her feelings in that scene. (But if Sady's run-down is correct, it sounds like I'm not.)
Someone asked about which traumatized man had died; I was referring to the guy Ned Stark executed. Ned then "comforted" his kids by saying that the man was mentally ill and therefore couldn't be right about the snow zombies. So Ned flat-out believed that he was murdering a man essentially innocent of actual desertion, who had only run south because a mental illness drove him to. Nice!
I apologize if I offended anyone and/or sparked intense disagreement. D:
ReplyDeleteDragoJustine, I’m glad that, for you, all of the characters, places, plot points, etc. meant that the book was a page turner. :D
And, honestly, I’m not saying that a *lot* characters, places, plot points, etc. aren’t good. For example, I read J.R Ward’s BlackDagger Brotherhood religiously and *she* has quite a bit going on in the pages of her book. But for me, the difference is that she cleverly, SLOWLY and stylistically introduces all of those elements at a pace that, I feel, the reader can easily digest. In essence, everything doesn’t feel All At Once and Immediately Important. Heck, sometimes she waits an entire book or two before [re-]introducing a plot point so that the audience can focus on what’s more immediately important in that particular book.
But that was just an example. The point that I tried to make was that I feel that an author *can* have a lot going on in their books. Absolutely; it’s their book and, damn it, they can write it however and whatever they want to. But I’m also saying that when I don’t feel that the author takes the time to carefully introduce characters, plot points, etc. to his or her readers in a way that’s not overwhelming and clumping…then I don’t want to take the time to read the book. Now, I apologize if I came off as saying that my interpretation and feelings are default; I really, really, really try hard not to do that on Ana’s blog or any other place. Still, I’d have to politely disagree with you and, again, I apologize if I upset you in any way.
As far as the patriarchy is concerned…well, I guess what I was trying to say was that there are a *lot* of media that show a world where patriarchy dominates. Mr. Martin may show that world in the negative (again, I’m not barely interested to read further to confirm that), but it’s sadly repetitive to me. Like I said, I’ve Seen That Story Before. It’s hard to tell me that what some of the females characters are or aren’t going to do won’t be predictable in some way. Maybe one will completely be crushed under it and just accept her role as Second Class Citizen. Maybe one will pick up a sword and she’ll magically be “Like A Man” (*snerk*). Maybe another one will act as the “Neck” while her husband parades around as the “Head”. Maybe yet another one will go “The Little Mermaid” route and just leave.
I’ve Seen It Before. So, I don’t see what’s so special and/or interesting about what Mr. Martin has done. : /
That’s not to say that we *need* stories where the oppression of women-and men, for that matter-in patriarchy is showcased. We absolutely do! It’s more that I’m saying that I’d like to see more stories where it’s shown that Women Matter and are Equal To Men (hence why I love Avatar: The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra) and patriarchy is dead and/or non-existent. I’m saying, “Okay…you’ve shown me what happens when we oppress people within a patriarchy. You’ve shown me a thousand times over. Now show me what happens when we *don’t*. Take that world and do a positive time skip to where Dany is a sovereign queen, please.”
That’s all that I’m saying and, again, I apologize. ^ ^
Beroli, if someone says something factually wrong which is contradicted by text, there is nothing stopping people from pulling out textual quotes to correct the mistake. But being factually wrong about something that can be proven or disproven with a single quote is not "a matter of opinion", nor is it literary analysis. "Bella falls" is a question of fact that can be settled with a single quote; "Bella falls and thus the book is abelist" is an opinion built on a foundation of complex inferences, interpretations, and contextual FedEx arrows.
ReplyDeleteIn either case, I do ask commenters to engage politely with each other, especially when -- as in this case -- the person seeing the patriarchal FedEx arrows is a woman. Telling a woman she is "confused" about whether something is patriarchal in her opinion is extremely bad taste, especially considering that "you're confused" is a commonly used gas-lighting technique used in support of system-wide misogyny.
To your hypothetical, we have already had a conversation where several people noted that they hadn't noticed Rue was dark-skinned in the book, and it was extremely polite and respectful. I see no reason why "discuss respectfully" should be an essentially controversial rule to maintain here nor why it should be called "strict relativism" (a term which has not been used in this thread, nor in the comment policy and which I do not think characterizes the comment you are responding to).
Amarie,
ReplyDeleteNo need to apologize! I'm not offended at all, and was trying to answer more in the "I have a different opinion" vein than the "your opinion is wrong" vein, though apparently I missed- sorry.
I meant to say "yes, I agree that the tons-of-information thing is indeed a characteristic of the books, it just affected me differently."
And...yes, okay, explained like that the "I've Seen It Before" thing makes a lot of sense. It's true, and the fact that a lot of the basic female character paths can be predicted by a basically media-savvy/genre-savvy reader is true. Then again, I think it's fairly true for the men as well (spoiler alert: the spoiled prince turns into a sociopathic king! The physically disadvantaged smart one gets by on his wits! The one with the stick up his butt tries to do the right thing and ends up dead!). But wanting to read something that operates on fundamentally different underlying assumptions is totally valid, though it reads to me like a slightly different criticism from "I'm not sure the author realizes patriarchy is a problem" (and a more fundamental one, which I have no answer to). Sounds like it's not for you, kind of like it's not for Ana, and like I said I wouldn't dream of trying to make somebody read it, or even recommend it to them unless I was sure of their tastes.
(Another long post, I'm afraid - hope this one didn't take so long to type that the conversation has moved on!)
ReplyDeleteI'm another one who thinks the 'so much going on and you're thrown in without a proper introduction' is a good thing. My favourite series ever (Steven Erikson's Malazan books) is even worse than GRRM. And I LOVE it. But I can really understand why someone wouldn't, because I can't read those books 80% of the time because my brain isn't up to it. And I've read all 10 books at least twice, but I still find myself halfway down a page thinking 'huh, who is talking right now and what is this about? Let's find the place where I still got it and read again from there.' Not everyone's cup of tea.
Game of Thrones was actually a pretty 'have NOT seen this before' book when I first read it. But it's over 15 years old now, and his deconstructions seem to have become tropes in themselves. When I first read it (spoilers) it was the first time I saw a main character killed (and then others, and even others), that the good guy didn't win, that the bad guy wasn't an evil dark lord, that the magically perfect pets didn't become fierce protectors against anything, that the tomboy girl didn't pick up a sword and be just like a man, but face a bunch of really specific troubles, that young love didn't win over cold hearts but resulted in wholesale revenge, that the young lady didn't succumb to patriarchal pressure but would become a strong operator herself, that the evil king was killed by his own people and not the heroes, that the prophesied hero died in the womb, that the boy with unknown patronage didn't turn out to be a missing heir (or maybe he will, but he probably won't turn out to be king!), that the lost princess didn't return straight away to claim her throne, and, most importantly for me, that wars aren't just a game for the nobles but have actual, lasting effects on the entire country. And that that matters.
Ana mentioned the traumatized guy Ned kills early on in the first book: it's a horrible scene, but I like how it's described as horrible. Other books would've just had Ned kill some soulless non-human evil creature that nobody would have the slightest reason to regret killing.
They all start out as standard tropes, but the story turns from there decisively. (Of course, what it turns TO is more chaos and misery, but it's not predictable at all. Or at least, wasn't to me when I first read it, and I'd read a LOT of fantasy and was pretty genre savvy.)
What GRRM doesn't do is show a world where women are Equal to men. But he does (rather convincingly, in the first few books; less so in the latter) show a world where women are equally brave and ambitious and active as men.
Of course, the series isn't uplifting in any way (except to show what people can live through and still retain fighting spirit, but that's not a nice message, really), and the misery is definitely something we've all Seen Before, and I understand anyone who wants to be rid of it.
Maartje
ReplyDeleteThank you SO MUCH for that! The entire "it was the first time I saw...." list is what I end up flailing around trying to articulate whenever anybody says "eh, he's just trying to be 'dark' and 'gritty', seen that." Not that that's what Amarie was saying--not trying to strawman your objection!--but I hear it a lot and I think maybe you had to be immersed in the in-retrospect-pretty-awful genre of 90s so-called-epic fantasy to realize what a departure it was?
Actions have consequences, *especially for people who aren't privileged*, even the people we're rooting for do awful things because of the cultural context they operate in, and people you thought were minor bit characters can decide they want to be major players too, even if it disrupts the nice neat plot arcs. That's why I keep finding myself defending it, despite having to go "yes it's depressing and horribly racist and his obsession with rape is creepy so I totally understand that you find it unpleasant/triggering."
Maybe this is because I only go for light fiction, but is Martin's stuff really that different (from other dark/dramatic fiction) and was there really a prior lack of such fiction? Or is it simply a matter of whatever one likes appears to be the least written/produced type of fiction? Because when I got into sci-fi/fantasy as a teen, I had a hell of a time finding things I actually wanted to read. I can't even begin to list the piles of Sci-Fi bookclub selections that ended up at the used bookstore because they started with grimdarkness, rape, people doing awful things to one another in general, and other things that are, well, not my thing.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe I'm failing to differentiate between different types of stuff that is not my thing. It could be that all of those books I only read the first chapter of were every bit as formulaic and predictable as the fluff that I enjoy. (Of course, I'm also the kind of person who finds the opposite of the old formula to be just as formulaic as the old formula. Why I am not impressed with Joss Whedon. Oh, look, someone's in love. This will end well.)
How do we enjoy Game of Thrones despite all the violence and unpleasantness? To borrow a phrase from Lawrence of Arabia - the trick, Ana, is not minding the violence and unpleasantness. It's definitely not a show for everyone.
ReplyDeleteThe particular part you mention as bothering you is actually a part that the show made worse - in the book, Drogo does NOT rape Daenerys, but instead takes the time to put her at ease and gradually get her to the point where her "no" changes to "yes". And then it makes much more sense that she falls in love and enjoys having sex with him. The showmakers claim they tried to film the wedding night scene as that kind of seduction, but couldn't get a take that didn't look silly, and decided rape would be more "in-character" anyway. And then forgot to change the subsequent love story to match, apparently.
On YMMV may vary, don't I know it! (As I ironically enjoy Deathlands and can hardly explain why -- it's a train wreck hurtling off of a cliff into an airplane and the airplane is also ON FIRE.)
ReplyDeleteThe particular part you mention as bothering you is actually a part that the show made worse
Ah, see, that makes me feel so much better. Because that was really bothering me. So I'm glad it's not book!canon.
It's weird, too, because most of the show's plot changes are improvements. They make all the kids older, which makes the teen marriages less creepy; they change Jon's falsely-accused criminal buddy on the Wall from having been falsely accused of rape to having been framed for theft after not letting a lord molest him; they make it clear from the get-go that Queen Cersei and her brother Jaime are complex human beings with excellent reasons to hate King Robert while the book series spends the first couple volumes presenting them as evil evil villains before finally showing us their sympathetic sides. But when it came to Daenerys and Khal Drogo... they clearly decided to play up the violent and barbaric aspect of the Dothraki, and a barbarian lord who totally gets a crush on a girl and wants her to be happy with him is not compatible with that picture.
ReplyDeleteDepizan,
ReplyDelete[TW rape, murder, torture, violence]
Yeah, I think it was that bad. If you're specific about genre, that is. I've always thought sci-fi was 'better' (for me, that is)across the board, because it was more willing to think through the consequences of what it submits its characters to - you can't just have a character raped or tortured or lose their family to brutal murder to give them the motivation to get off the couch, and then forget about other consequences! It's usually more story-driven anyway, so I can deal with it if the characters are a bit flat and pigeonholed, and the best character authors I know, like Ursula LeGuin, are more renowned for their sci-fi. But a lot of especially 'epic' or 'high' fantasy (alternate worlds with knights and kings and jousts and magic and prophesy and very often dragons and MacGuffin-type quests) was IMO pretty awful. I still like most of the music I liked as a child, but don't like most of my favourite fantasy books anymore.
I'm thinking about David Eddings (the man only knows how to write 3 characters - man, woman, other, all really stereotypical - so he clones them and gives them different hair colours and calls it a day), Terry Brooks (blatant Tolkien rip-off AND flat as a board. Amusing, though), Roger Zelazny (still have a weakness for his Amber Chronicles because I roleplayed in that world for a long time, but when it comes to characterisation and plot they kind of make me cringe now), Robert Jordan (hair-pulling and inexplicable miscommunications ftw!), Raymond Feist (innovative, but still SO predictable), Weis & Hickman (very MacGuffiny and 'check all boxes and proceed to victory'-based), Anne McCaffrey (aargh, the Unfortunate Implications!), etc. I still like Robin Hobb, though (I was an angsty teen when I read Fitz's story, and he was an angsty teen too, so we clicked).
I read one Terry Goodkind novel once, but that wasn't just bad but vile ('dark lord' who tortures kids and puppies for the heck of it, 'hero' whose actions are objectively speaking just as awful as the dark lord's but who you're supposed to adore, such as when he cuts through a crowd of unarmed protestors because they're pacifists and therefore need to die painfully, and the opening scene which has a woman in a full-length white ball gown fleeing through a brambly forest and escaping with the ball gown both clean and intact), so I threw that one against a wall.
These are all series that want to be realistic and play with heavy themes, but I always thought them really 'safe' (unless you empathise with the bit characters or the victims, and you're really not supposed to do that) because it was a given that the hero would win and all the important people would survive, and no matter what traumatic things happened to them, they'd shrug it off and remain unchanged. Goes back to the 'refreshing honesty' I described in my first post in this thread.
Although I can imagine that if you're looking for intelligent stories that are somewhat uplifting, bumping into all the pretend-gritty series all the time makes it seem like there's a LOT of that out there. And there was. It just wasn't good, if you ask me.
I, too, am in a dash, but I want to say thank you for this wonderful comment. When I OP'd, I really was asking -- I know that many people I respect love the books, and I'd like to understand why since I can't get there myself due to my own triggers, etc.
ReplyDeleteThis comment was a really lovely example of a comprehensive "I love X, because..." without making it sound like anyone who felt differently was wrong/ignorant/etc. The argument over Depiction vs. Endorsement is an inherently subjective one (as we see in basically every Twilight and Narnia post ever), and it's a beautiful thing (to me) when people can still share their POVs over it.
And thank you again for the insight.
But when it came to Daenerys and Khal Drogo... they clearly decided to play up the violent and barbaric aspect of the Dothraki, and a barbarian lord who totally gets a crush on a girl and wants her to be happy with him is not compatible with that picture.
ReplyDeleteWhich is all kinds of frustrating because besides adding gratuitous rape that wasn't in the books, it compounds Race Fail by taking an apparently complex character (he's a warlord... in love!) and making him one-dimensionally brutal and violent, which is totally not how Hollywood portrays people of color, no sir.
It just astounds me that of all the places to throw in a gratuitous rape, they'd do it with the White Girl / Dark Man relationship.
I do tend to a) read for escapism (though, yes, preferably at least semi-intelligent escapism) and b) not separate genres very carefully in my head. Though, even without reading them, I can tell the difference between Goodkind (dear god, Goodkind) and Martin. And if Martin is writing as a reaction to the not-thought-through serious fantasy fiction, that does make me think about the books differently. (Still not my thing, but you've no idea how many fans put it as Martin vs. fluff, which makes very little sense, really*, and comes off as oddly hostile to other people's choices.)
ReplyDelete*Because fluff either intentionally disregards reality/consequences or intentionally only plays with them within certain bounds. Serious stuff that does the same does seem dishonest.
Of course, I'm also the kind of person who finds the opposite of the old formula to be just as formulaic as the old formula.
ReplyDeleteThis was a large part of what caused me to lose interest in the books, although it took quite a while to register just how consistently GRRM was inverting things. I don't remember the exact point it clicked, but eventually I said "Okay, whatever would stereotypically happen in an Epic Fantasy story, he will write the opposite."
As others have pointed out, Martin is very much writing a response to the post-Tolkien fantasy formula, and I think I have trouble with the dissonance: I find the story somewhat lacking without including that meta-level dialogue with other fantasy fiction, yet I also find the meta-level dialogue is not well-served in its expression through this particular story. Every part of the story is trying to be two things at once, mythic and critical, and they confuse each other more often than they synergise.
There is one scene that Martin said was the hardest to write (maybe the hardest of anything he'd ever written) and it is, to me, the best part of the series. It's unrelentingly awful in tragedy and violence, and almost dreamlike, complete with lyrical accompaniment, and by its very nature is a response to an implausible conceit in medieval fantasy. It's good in many ways, if you can handle the aforementioned tragic violence. Yet, taken in the context of the rest of the story, it felt quite awkward as well, because it was a 'realistic' climax to a storyline that had previously been one of the most fantasy-like, and I could no longer tell how the story was supposed to fit together and felt like rather a lot of my time had been wasted. (Though perhaps not as egregiously as the Dorne parts of book 4.)
Alyssa Rosenberg's response is interesting, and she's not wrong about Sady Doyle's unrelenting hate for geekdom (as she sees it). One might gather from my comments here that I'm generally not a fan of ASOIAF these days, and I don't think Doyle is completely right either (she's had similar things to say about Doctor Who, and if you want to see me get into Nitpicky Frenzy...) but it does seem to me like it's difficult to get a good dialogue going about the parts of the books that could be Legit Problematic because someone inevitably starts waving around the It's Supposed To Be Awful flag to deflect any and all critiques.
"Everyone enjoys some fiction that is also problematic" is a phrase that needs to get into the general consciousness. I'm going to start planning some lolcats on that theme.
"Everyone enjoys some fiction that is also problematic" is a phrase that needs to get into the general consciousness.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's a single work of fiction I love that isn't also problematic. I'm not entirely certain it's possible to write something that isn't problematic (which doesn't mean one shouldn't try!) since we're all so thoroughly steeped in a culture that is full of issues. The funny thing is, becoming more aware made some fiction I used to like become unpalatable, while other fiction, despite my being just as aware of it's problems, I still like or love. (And sometimes rant about the problems therein.) I'm not sure what makes the difference.
I don't see it as Martin vs. Fluff either. I adore fluff, especially good fluff that plays by its own rules. Good fluff says 'the worst won't necessarily happen, even if people are given the option to do something bad.' Badly-thought-out grimdark says 'yes! the worst WILL happen!' but then forgets about it. I read Martin as saying 'people, if you're going to posit that your villains will do the worst when they get the chance, you owe it to your characters and readers to see it through to the end.'
ReplyDelete(Although I too know people who see it as GRRM vs fluff. "So, you're watching My Little Pony now? You must be losing your nerve!" Can't stand that attitude.)
I agree that 'the opposite of what's expected is predictable too' - the first few books I hadn't caught on to that pattern as much (and even where I had, I liked it because it was different), but it's made me a little jaded about the new book.
Bit late to this discussion, and almost everything I could say about why I enjoy the series (despite finding some bits hard to watch) has been said.
ReplyDeleteThat said: I've never seen the books, and I've had no problem following the series.
Also, given the background that's been pointed out, it's worth adding that what starts out fresh almost inevitably goes stale - somebody upthread made a comparison to Joss Whedon, whose work I know much better than Martin's, and it's worth remembering the impact Whedon's early character deaths had. Everybody tends to stick with what works, even when sticking with it will MAKE it stop working.
I read Martin as saying 'people, if you're going to posit that your villains will do the worst when they get the chance, you owe it to your characters and readers to see it through to the end.'
ReplyDelete*nods* It's part of having an internally consistent world (which even fluff ought to have). Even I don't want people breaking the rules of the world to pull off happy endings or get characters out of trouble. Yeah, I like fluff, so I want happy endings and for the characters not to be completely wrecked by the events of the story, but, by god, make it work within the setting and rules established. Or at least fool me into thinking it does.
I'm not entirely certain it's possible to write something that isn't problematic (which doesn't mean one shouldn't try!) since we're all so thoroughly steeped in a culture that is full of issues. The funny thing is, becoming more aware made some fiction I used to like become unpalatable, while other fiction, despite my being just as aware of it's problems, I still like or love.
ReplyDeleteYup. I mean, I've read Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow several times each, and each time I've understood more about the political and social issues therein, and at this point I just facepalm every time OSC does anything, anywhere, but I don't doubt I'm going to read them again someday, because there's stuff in there that I like, too. (I even like Anton, before he gets railroaded into explaining how gay men aren't truly fulfilled until they have a wife and children.)
And I do try to write non-problematic things, and even non-problematic worlds (as I ranted more than once while designing my previous NaNo work "If we're going to have giant dragons flapping around the skies in blatant disregard for the square-cube law then I don't see why we should treat institutional sexism as a universal constant") but I'm pretty sure I fail, and that's the point: self-improvement is iterative. Sometimes washing off the grime is going to reveal new flaws underneath, but that doesn't mean that the washing is pointless, it means we've got to start washing or we're never going to find the flaws to begin with.
---
Which is one of many reasons why I think it's totally okay to like problematic things (we really can't NOT do so, I think) and yet at the same time, be AWARE that problematic things exist even in our favorite stuff and therefore not shout down people who try to point it out, or call them ignorant, or act as if a statement of problematicness is equivalent to proposing a book-burning.
So very yes. I look forward to your future postings on the matter; I've clearly got some blog posts of my own percolating. There are some parallels here that are not being paralleled. (The one on my mind, for example: [white] people are generally pretty happy to talk about their Embarrassingly Racist Grandparent without acting like this somehow makes said relative undiluted evil, or worrying that someone else is going to say that they are evil for not hating said relative. But if you try to get them to say "I really like this book, but holy @#$% it is racist sometimes" it's like you've just thrown down all of the gauntlets.)
---
why I've not yet leaped into the Dr. Who franchise. (Besides the fact that I'd be starting very late at this point and have to backfill a huge amount of material
As a note unrelated to anything else in this thread, Doctor Who has an advantage on the 'backfill' aspect in that it's less a single continuity and more a series of continuities. If you were to start watching, for example, from the series 5 premiere "The Eleventh Hour", it would basically treat you as a new viewer to a brand new show and there would be only a handful of confusing bits. It would mean that you would be missing out on the great episodes that came before then, but you're doing that already anyway. ;) Though, if you obsessively read my blog (and why wouldn't you), you've already encountered my diatribe against the mounting sexism in the last couple of seasons. So now I'm curious as to what your one-off comment was, too...
So now I'm curious as to what your one-off comment was, too...
ReplyDeleteSince it is not essential to the post in question, I'll pre-spoil (is that redundant? FULL SPEED AHEAD, no time to backspace) and say that someone asked me when I would start watching Dr. Who (because awesome) and I said when they cast hir with a person of color or a woman (or both), since I understand that the whole regeneration thing allows for that. (I may be wrong, that's what I've heard, the person in question didn't correct or dispute the possibility.)
Whereupon followed a very long and rather heated discussion that I hadn't at all meant to spark off with my flippant remark, and I felt rather embarrassed about afterward because I hadn't meant to sound critical of either the show (I know very little of it) or the person (whom I enormously respect). I just sometimes feel like I have enough White Male Things in my life and when I'm imagining embarking on an epic quest to join a giant new fandom (and the timesink that usually entails), I find myself casting about for a little variety in my choice of entertainments*.
(Not that The Tudors was terribly multi-cultural, of course. But that one wasn't even my idea.)
I said when they cast hir with a person of color or a woman (or both), since I understand that the whole regeneration thing allows for that. (I may be wrong, that's what I've heard, the person in question didn't correct or dispute the possibility.)
ReplyDeleteAh, yes. (You are right that regeneration allows that, although it wasn't made explicitly canonical until this season, when we were told of one Time Lord who varied between male and female, and saw someone change skin tone between regenerations.) Obviously I Have Thoughts on the matter, but I will refrain from derailing/ranting/rambling here, as the Martin thread is interesting enough already.
George R. R. Martin's work is isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I sort of see it as a revisiting of the Generic European Medieval Fantasy World with the layer of attractive whitewashing and sanitizing removed. Feudalism, for example, actually works in a way that approaches reality and everything is really horrible. It is a world of obligation, where free consent is impossible. Abuse is endemic and systematic. Medieval Patriarchy is not a nice place. If anything, it's trying to run a lot of the standard tropes of fantasy fiction (as Maartje points out) in a more realistic setting.
ReplyDeleteI really do think there should be more novels set in fantasy worlds without institutionalized sexism (aside: I am writing a story with societal roles, but not gender based ones), but on the other hand, we're probably not going to stop depicting medieval Europe any time soon. And I suppose I just prefer the darker and more historical attempts to any that try to overly romanticize the past and gloss over the less gritty elements.
It seems highly, highly problematic to argue that all stories need to be morality tales where good triumphs over evil and that we (the audience) are only capable (or should only be capable) of empathizing with people who's worldview matches up exactly with our own. Or that all fiction should be read as intentional morality plays.
I suppose just quickly, let's take one example. Catelyn Stark is described by Tiger Beatdown for being a dutiful and obedient wife. I really like her character because she is very much the medieval lady, who governs and makes war in the absence of her husband. It's actually a character who we don't see a lot of in fantasy fiction, because there's an overriding idea that mediessance ladies are compelled by their culture to sit around and embroider all day, despite all five hundred years of history to the contrary. (I'm to this day very annoyed about how Queen Sibylla of Jerusalem was written out of being King of Jerusalem in her own right and leading the defense of her city in "Kingdom of Heaven".)
That all said, Ana, don't make yourself watch (or read) something you don't like. The tv series of Game of Thrones is absolutely indefensible when it comes to the male gaze. They put more sex (and dubious, frequently problematic sex at that) in than is in the books, which I think adds to the feeling that you should be finding everything in it titillating.
I have not seen the show. Stopped reading a couple of years ago, about half-way through the third book (I may or may not be accurate in remembering actually flinging the book across the room and into a wall) because Teh Happies, it has them not, and it has-them-not all over the place and I have not yet been in a mental space where I felt comfortable going back.
ReplyDeleteI can handle dark-and-gritty realism in books, but for me, it hit the point where it was less "bad things happen here because bad things happen in real life" and more a gleeful, sadistic kind of "Yeah, kick'em again!"
George R. R. Martin's work is isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I sort of see it as a revisiting of the Generic European Medieval Fantasy World with the layer of attractive whitewashing and sanitizing removed. Feudalism, for example, actually works in a way that approaches reality and everything is really horrible.
ReplyDeleteNo. It really doesn't work in a way that resembles reality any more than--to cross posts a bit--the "and the Pevensie kings and queens were wise and benevolent because I say so" writing of Lewis. George R. R. Martin's books present a time much worse than the real world ever was, where, if you're lucky, you have a choice between doing horrible things and having horrible things done to you (if you're not lucky, you get both without a choice).
Whatever his reasons for making his world as bloody, gorey, and rape-y as it is, "It's realistic" is not one of them. Because it isn't.
If GRRM were primarily riding the crest of realisticalitude, then medieval histories and biographies would be a lot more popular and people would have a better idea of how medieval technology actually worked, for one thing. I think he appeals to the now-fading trend that was expressed in video games as Real Is Brown, wherein games that were trying to press how realistic they are would present a world in muted 'earth tones' because grown-ups don't believe in the Great Pumpkin, the Tooth Fairy, or pastel colours.
ReplyDelete*glances out window at absurdly green trees and implausibly blue sky; looking forward to the tastelessly pink sunset*
Which is to say that GRRM doesn't provide realism so much as he provides what people think realism should be - he produces a fake that's more convincing than the real thing. Which is, of course, often what any author aspires to achieve, since real things are hard to cram inside books.
TW: Rape
ReplyDeleteI always kind of flinch at the idea that idea that Historical Realisticism = Moar Rapes. I don't know how much this plays into GRRM's works, having not read them, but you see this a LOT in, say, (to pick an example that I think will not be controversial) F.A.T.A.L. literature. (If you don't know what that is, all the trigger warnings apply in spades. Don't google it at work.)
Rape is a complex subject. (For the western cultures I am most familiar with,) I believe it can be truthfully said that rape has always been taken at least nominally seriously, if only through vigilantism and tribal justice. (I.e., If a man rapes a family's sister or daughter, he runs the risk of serious injury from said family if the law refuses to provide compensation and if said family is roughly equal to the rapist in political power.) I believe it can ALSO be truthfully said that rape has always been taken at least nominally as unimportant, because of rape culture, patriarchy, men-will-be-men, etc.
So to create a Historicist Realistographic world where men are raping right and left without consequence and as though society is just peachy-keen with it, strikes me as all sorts of problematic from a Progress Always Increases mentality, an Aren't We Better Than Those Silly Ancestors aspect, a Rape Is A Rare Thing Nowadays mentality, and a Rape Is Always Violent And Obvious issue. There are a LOT of problems with all four of those ideas, and I'm already feeling like I'm forgetting some. (And that's not even getting into the Rape Is Something The Dark People Do/Did Even More Than The Civilized White People yuckiness.)
Rape is dark, yes. Rape has always been with us, yes. I'm unconvinced, though, that Historicilitude Realisotram requires or justifies Planet of the Unbridled Raping, especially if the raping is presented as always violent and yet socially acceptable by our super backwards ancestors who we are all so much better than because we've learned to master our ravening penises. *stares meaningfully at Scott Adams post*
You can see a similar thing in ancient art. At one point the style was to be idealized without a flaw or a wrinkle, then it went toward realism, then something else, beyond realism where the wrinkles and flaws and whatnot were exaggerated to the point where realism didn't even begin to describe it, but it was sort of in the direction of realism and then overshooting it by a week and a half. (I've heard it described as a kind of "hyper-realism".)
ReplyDeleteAnd then it goes back to being idealized, and the pendulum swings.
Though calling it a pendulum swing oversimplifies too much because there's also a political element. Idealized forms were associated with Athenian democracy, wrinkled flawed faces a thing of the Roman Republic. If you'd just overthrown the Republic but you wanted to let the people know that you're really on their side and restoring power to them by getting all of the corruption out of the way, which is what Augustus wanted people to think, then it's a good idea to go back to what was from democracy. If the Julio-Claudians just drove the empire into the ground while portraying themselves as increasingly idealized and divine, and you've snatched power in the chaos that followed, going back to the flawed human portrait style of the Republic is smart propaganda.
Anyway, if GRRM is rejecting idealized versions by going as far as possible on the opposite side of realism (i.e. "I'll be as unrealistic as everyone else, but in the opposite direction!") then that's part of a very old tradition and he's in good company.
-
That said, I have no intention of ever reading or watching it. I don't understand the appeal at all.
I've never understood why someone would look at the world and decide there's not enough suffering in it an so feel the need to turn to fiction to get more. I'm not just talking about things that overshoot realistic. I mean in general.
If I have need for unhappy endings or pain or inhumanity, or heroes failing, or deeply flawed people doing horrible things or whatnot, I'm pretty sure that's what reality is for. It's certainly never left me thinking that there's a need to invent more hope crushing things.
Which is not to say I have anything against people who feel otherwise. It's not lost on me that I'm surrounded here by people who do feel otherwise, and I certainly have great respect for you. I just don't get why you like the types of fiction you like.
Attempts to explain always seem to start a few steps too late, assuming that I get why one would want more sad in zir life and explaining why this sad is preferable to other sad, where the part I don't get is why one wants more sad.
And reality is frequently unrealistic. I do get a little twitchy when people describe serious or grim or, hell, I don't know what a good word for it is, fiction as realistic (even though I've been guilty of doing the same thing because what the hell do we call it?).
ReplyDeleteTo drag something very un-fantasy into the discussion, one could never write the (true!) events of the "Gimli Glider", Air Canada Flight 143, as a serious story because it's too preposterous. The jetliner that runs out of fuel mid-flight just happens to have a pilot who spends his off-duty time flying gliders. When it turns out that it can't glide to any open airfield, again, a pilot just happens to know of a decommissioned field they can use that's in range. That field is currently being used as a drag racing strip and is mid family day. There are kids on the runway, who try to outrun the gliding jet on bikes. But the front wheel happens to collapse and that combined with the rail that had been added down the center of the runway to facilitate drag racing stops the plane before it hits anyone. No one dies. No one is seriously injured. And the plane? It went on to fly for another couple of decades. That's a lot of author saving throws there. It would have to be a comedy. No one would buy it any other way.
There's plenty of room for fiction that is, for lack of better terms, "the dark version of reality" and plenty of room for fiction that is "the light version of reality." But fiction really can't do realism. It'd be too weird.
Just wanted to add that this is a great and interesting discussion, everyone!! This is ALMOST making me want to go and open up the book again...
ReplyDeleteAnd DragoJustin, no hard feelings! I'm glad we're able to discuss! ^ ^
Which is not to say I have anything against people who feel otherwise. It's not lost on me that I'm surrounded here by people who do feel otherwise, and I certainly have great respect for you. I just don't get why you like the types of fiction you like.
ReplyDeleteWe're in pretty much th same boat, so you do have a little company. I can see the appeal of some not-my-thing things in an intellectual sort of way. Oh, yeah, I can see why someone would write X because it hasn't been done, or it's always done a certain way, or no one else has really looked at the implications. Or whatever. Martin applies reality to high fantasy tropes. Whedon hates happiness.* Etc.
But, like you, I don't really get why a person wants their fiction to be as bad or worse than reality. But I don't get why people like bread with nuts in it or rocky road ice cream or any number of other things. Taste is a funny thing that way.
*I'm semi-kidding there. Though his fiction does make me wonder...
So to create a Historicist Realistographic world where men are raping right and left without consequence and as though society is just peachy-keen with it...
ReplyDeleteWhile the Tiger Beatdown critique may have presented it that way, it's not what Martin wrote. Most of the rape in Westeros proper is due to the massive civil war that breaks down society and the rule of law - in peacetime and peaceful areas, rape is punished, and plenty of rapists wind up serving a life sentence in the Night's Watch.
Which, incidentally, is one of the instances where the Tiger Beatdown critique crosses over from negative interpretation to outright lies - it claims that the books present the Night's Watch as an honorable band of brothers despite being full of rapists and other assorted scum, when in fact the books make it clear that the "honorable band of brothers" notion is a myth promulgated by the Watch and the Stark family, and a major part of Jon Snow's initial story arc is having to come to terms with the difference between the myth his father fed him and the reality he now has to live with.
TW: Rape
ReplyDeleteWhich, incidentally, is one of the instances where the Tiger Beatdown critique crosses over from negative interpretation to outright lies - it claims that the books present the Night's Watch as an honorable band of brothers despite being full of rapists and other assorted scum
I haven't read the books, but the TV series is definitely leaning that way toward the Band O' Bros interpretation. Episode 2 had Tyrion point out VERY BRIEFLY that the two new recruits coming with Jon are rapists, but once they get there in Episode 3, it's all Jean Valjeans all 'round (Bob there STOLE BREAD FOR HIS STARVING SISTER and JIMMY WAS ABANDONED AT BIRTH FOR BEING FUNNY-LOOKING) and Jon is grinning and teaching them fighting and it's all very chummy. That was a whiplash moment for me, let me tell you. "Oh, so I'm... supposed to LIKE the band of supposedly-primarily-rapists but apparently not really?"
Personally, I'm more disturbed by the apparent implication that rapists rape for sex, not power, and that sending grown rapists to live in a veritable prison with young boys works out great for everyone involved because no women are there to be tempting.
Mind you, we're only 3 episodes in. Maybe they'll deal with the horribleness of that notion later with a prison rape scene. (I really hope not -- I've kind of reached my rape limit for the month.)
Well, (a) Jon primarily chooses to associate with non-evil people, and (b) rape is far from the only crime that can land a guy on the Wall - theft does the job too, and there are a lot of desperate people in Westeros willing to steal to survive. And while it's true that Martin seems not to realize prison rape exists, there are definitely plenty of Brothers who bully weaker recruits and make trouble, especially when they're being called upon to risk their lives defending the realm.
ReplyDeletechris & depizan, I'm with both of you in worldview.
ReplyDeleteI'm depressed a lot, I'm highly sensitive to sensory stimuli, I have PTSD, I'm estranged from my family of origin, I haven't worked in 3 years and may never work again - I *know* that life is hard and people can do horrible things to each other. I don't want fiction that *focuses* on that aspect of reality, because I really don't need more reasons to wonder if it's worth getting out of bed in the morning.
Calling the stuff I *do* like 'fluff' just because it's not grimdark seems like, well, propaganda.
Maybe this thread isn't a good place for it, but I've been thinking about joy and delight and pleasure and other such things a lot lately. They are not my 'discipline' because that seems like a strange term to use for what they are, but 'discipline' is respected and people know what it means. So if there's an equivalent to 'discipline' that is not grim and stoic, that's what joy&such is to me. Getting people to understand that my stuff matters just as much as grimdark is really difficult when other people insist upon calling my stuff 'fluff' and saying I'm weak and silly for liking such unserious stuff that totally doesn't matter. Because if I didn't have joy&such in my life? Life itself would be pointless. I couldn't do it. Joy makes it possible for me to get through the day, and think it's worth something. How can that possibly be *un*serious?
I'm working on a post about this for my own blog, but it's tricky because a lot of the things I want to say, I don't have words for, and the words I could use mean something completely different than what I actually want to say.
I feel okay with the fact that I like some things that are problematic. For instance one of my favorite movies is the Paprika. It has an overweight character who is played for laughs in a way that I'm deeply uncomfortable with. It's not enough to ruin the entire movie for me, but I do cringe through most of that character's scenes. And if I recommend the movie to anyone I have to warn them about it.
ReplyDeleteThe part that I'm still working on is where the line is drawn. Or do I even have to have a line? Maybe it's better to just enjoy what I enjoy, until I'm not enjoying it anymore.
Another tough one is realizing that I like things that are problematic in ways I haven't noticed yet, & sometimes when I do notice I'll lose something I loved. Recently I rewatched the movie Buckaroo Banzai for the first time in 10-15 years. And was appalled to discover that in the cool gang of scientists / musicians / adventurers there's only two women: the hero's girlfriend and the receptionist. (The receptionist isn't even really a character; her only action besides delivering messages is to be instantly threatened by the girlfriend.) I loved that movie so much, and never noticed that women weren't welcome in the world it created.
Hm, you make a very good argument for not calling it fluff. Another commenter around these parts suggested noblebright as an oposite of grimdark (both come from Warhammer 40k fandom) which is at least an alternative for the adventure fiction that falls under "fluff." But I'm open to other suggestions as well.
ReplyDeleteFiction* that is happy and joyful is definitely important. And it can have just as much to say as the dark fiction out there. After all, life isn't just grim darkness, even if it can feel like it some times.
*And other arts.
I do disagree with the idea that it is only sadistic glee that drives the reading or writing of stories set in non-utopian settings.
ReplyDeleteSee, now, I was reading along, thinking about what you were saying, and then I run into this massive excluded middle fallacy.
The only options are not "G.R.R. Martin's world of blood, gore, and rape" and "utopian settings." A world in which it's possible for someone to be a decent person, and the logical reaction isn't, "So, are you going to turn into a monster, or will something hideous happen to you? Pick one, can have both if you want but can't have neither," is not the definition of a utopian setting.
The following may be incoherent, since I'm trying to articulate reasons for tastes that I've never really thought about before.
ReplyDeleteI think the appeal of grimdark, at least for me, is a "the darker the night, the brighter the dawn" thing. It's like the trope of the hero's darkest hour. Our hero is bloodied, the villain has the macguffin, and all hope seems lost, until the hero turns the tide and saves the day. The day-saving has more impact than if the hero just breezed through all opposition without breaking a sweat. Grimdark darkest hours are darker and last most of the day, so the times when justice does prevail and good things happen to good people, it stands out more.
If there isn't going to be any justice prevailing, and all the characters are awful and/or come to bad ends, I join the chorus of not getting the appeal. I guess, to answer the question from the original post, the coping mechanism is the hope that some of the things will work out. That hope might be in vain, but I'm an optimist.
I think the appeal of grimdark, at least for me, is a "the darker the night, the brighter the dawn" thing. It's like the trope of the hero's darkest hour. Our hero is bloodied, the villain has the macguffin, and all hope seems lost, until the hero turns the tide and saves the day.
ReplyDeleteNow that I understand on an emotional as well as intellectual level. Granted, I've got a limited tolerance for dark. A very limited tolerance. There are books by authors I really like that I rarely re-read because they go beyond what I want to deal with. (Bujold's Mirror Dance leaps to mind.) But even I rather like that sort of triumph.
I'm willing to go with some dark like you say *if* 2 other conditions are present: (1) emotional honesty (not hiding what they are actually feeling because it's not 'heroic' or too painful) and (2) genuine insight is offered. I read a lot of nonfiction too, where people have suffered through seriously horrible things, but if they don't pull any punches and learn something really deep and lasting from all of it (and can write about it well), I'm in. If, otoh, it's just bad stuff happens, hero 'saves the day', for me that's ho hum.
ReplyDeleteI confess that "realism" was probably the wrong choice of word. Verisimilitude is probably better
ReplyDeleteNow I wish I'd used the word "verisimilitude" when I was thinking of offering it, in response to depizan, as something other than realism that fiction actually shoots for and at times attains.
That said, the word might be overly broad for your purposes. As someone who doesn't particularly like the stories that make one sad I still demand verisimilitude from much of what I consume. Though not quite everything as, especially in the case of movies, there can be a certain pleasure in watching something poorly constructed.
The point I'm trying to make is that whilst GRRM's feudalism is exaggerated and simplified, I think there is a grain of truth there
Maybe this is because I don't have first hand experience of the books, but I'm at a loss for why you started by saying, "I would beg to differ," if this is the point you're trying to make. I don't think anyone's claimed that GRRM's feudalism lacks a grain of truth, they've just said that it's exaggerated and simplified.
There's nothing wrong with exaggerated and simplified, and I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise, but it's not realistic. Which you already pointed out in the first thing I quotes, so maybe I'm just being redundant by typing this.
-
For another example where people wouldn't think the real thing is realistic, all of those beautiful white marble statues in ancient Greece and Rome? They painted those. What people think Ancient Greece looked like. What it actually looked like. Note that I have no idea why he's blonde. I mean, the reconstruction is blonde based on traces of the original yellow paint surviving, but I have no idea why there was a blonde statue in a place not known for its blondes.
I think the appeal of grimdark, at least for me, is a "the darker the night, the brighter the dawn" thing.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the trouble with GRRM is that we're billions of pages into the story and there's no sign of dawn anywhere. And, to belabor the metaphor, it's a pretty dark and stormy night, and getting darker all the time with not even a hint of starlight.
I quite liked the first book or two: hey, it's the Wars of the Roses! (in the first book, pretty blatantly) only with attention paid to the lives of women and children. (Poor people, not so much, but you can't have everything.) And with baby dragons, and legends of ice monsters-- cool! And if it concentrates more on the sterner virtues of honor and duty and courage, those virtues are important bulwarks during a time of civil breakdown.
But as the series slogs on, it seems that the horrors are getting more exaggerated, and to a large degree more sexualized, and there are fewer and fewer moments of grace, or of any kind of virtue at all. The stars need to shine, once in a while.
I was typing up a post with reasons why I like painful stories, but then I had to go to work and put on my work playlist, and here's the thing: I like sad music too. I like sad music and angry music and heartbroken music much more than I like upbeat, happy music. (I was in a musical instrument museum a while back, and it played the type of music it was used for in its time. Most of it was so upbeat that I felt sick. So glad when they invented the SAD harpsichord music.) And that's not dependent on my mood or general life situation at all - there's few things I like more than sitting down on a happy day and crying my eyes out to Pain of Salvation's Iter Impius.
ReplyDeleteI always think that 'because if there wasn't any evil, how would you know good' is a crappy answer to religious questions, but for me it's definitely the case that the deeper I dig the lows, the higher the rest seems. I like to run my system through the gamut of emotions to sort of recalibrate it. 'Triumph' is a higher feeling for me than 'happiness,' and triumph works even better after a dose of despair.
And, thinking about it more: I have this tendency in daily life to dissociate and daydream my life away. This scares me, and in the past this dissociation has veered into depression and hopelessness.
ReplyDeletePlaying with emotions keeps me connected to the world. And for me, that's a good thing.
For another example where people wouldn't think the real thing is realistic, all of those beautiful white marble statues in ancient Greece and Rome? They painted those.
ReplyDeleteI knew this, abstractly, but hadn't seen an example - and ouch, that is not how an ancient civilisation is supposed to art. Next you'll tell me they didn't wear bleached white togas all day every day. (Also, I'm reminded of mannequins, and I wonder how often painted statues like that were used to model clothing.)
---
I can definitely get behind grim stories for the sake of great triumphs; that's great stuff, and a bittersweet victory can be far more powerful than a flawless one. I think most people would agree with that, and if GRRM actually made a habit of including moments like that, I don't think he'd be quite such a posterboy for grimdark. Spoilery example: when we see Daenerys at the end of book three, she's just led a slave revolt in the Free Cities and set her plans for revengeconquest on hold in order to rebuild. It is one of the few hopeful moments in the series, when someone seeks restoration rather than destruction. Almost every other book-end scene that anyone gets in any of the series is their plans failing, or them being captured, or crippled, or about-to-be-executed, and everything they've tried to achieve is left in ruins. It's not the grim stories themselves that people remark on, because honestly, there are tons of books on the shelves that partake in the grimdark sometimes - it's the absolute dedication to suffering and failure that characterises GRRM.
That makes sense. And for those of us who find quite enough despair in reality, we've got happy fiction and happy music.
ReplyDeleteConsuming unhappy fiction would simply spin my depression and anxiety out of control. The upbeat stuff gives me the strength to carry on here in reality. More so than anything else I've tried.
I agree with Maartje, it may be related to why I like sad music. I really appreciate works of art that evoke strong emotions from me, and the strength of emotion is in some ways more important that which emotion it is. (This is also probably why I abhor spoilers so much - knowing what happens ruins the shock.)
ReplyDeleteAs far as hopeful content goes, for me it is more effective because of how sparse it is. The last few sentences of A Clash of Kings are one of my all-time favorite book endings (mild spoilers):
Like me, he thought. I'm not dead either.
It's how relentlessly bleak most of the book was that makes that meager sentiment into one of the most powerful things I've read.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete